Creates a non-destructive retopology version of a character with a target face budget, keeping source versions intact for versioned Blender production workflows.
Create a non-destructive retopology version with a target face budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| character_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| target_faces | No | ||
| source_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuine behavioral fact — the operation is 'non-destructive', i.e. it produces a version rather than overwriting the source — which is real value beyond structured data. However it says nothing about whether this is a long-running/async job (the get_job_status/cancel_job siblings suggest jobs exist), what permissions are needed, or whether source_version must already exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the key scope trait ('non-destructive') front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for its content, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema means return values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter, 4-required mutation-style tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits required-parameter meaning, optionality of target_faces, and pipeline prerequisites. Not sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only accounts for 'target_faces' via 'target face budget' and does not mention that target_faces is optional (default 12000), nor what project_root, character_id, source_version, or request_id mean or require.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a ... retopology version') plus two distinguishing traits: 'non-destructive' and 'target face budget'. It is clearly separable from mesh/rig/groom siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no placement in the pipeline (e.g. that it should follow create_character_mesh or a sculpting stage, and precede create_uv_and_materials/rig_character). The agent must infer all sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.